4.6 Article

Discrete mixtures of normals pseudo maximum likelihood estimators of structural vector autoregressions

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS
卷 235, 期 2, 页码 643-665

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2022.02.010

关键词

Consistency; Efficiency bound; Finite normal mixtures; Pseudo maximum likelihood estimators; Structural models; Volatility indices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines likelihood inference in structural vector autoregressions with independent non-Gaussian shocks, finding that there may be inconsistencies in parameter estimation under distributional misspecification. We demonstrate that autoregressive coefficients and (scaled) impact multipliers remain consistent, but the drifts and shocks' standard deviations are generally inconsistent. However, we establish consistency when using a discrete scale mixture of normals or an unrestricted finite mixture in the non-Gaussian log-likelihood, and compare the efficiency of these estimators with other consistent two-step proposals, including our own. Finally, our empirical application investigates dynamic linkages between three popular volatility indices.
Likelihood inference in structural vector autoregressions with independent non-Gaussian shocks leads to parametric identification and efficient estimation at the risk of inconsistencies under distributional misspecification. We prove that autoregressive coefficients and (scaled) impact multipliers remain consistent, but the drifts and shocks' standard deviations are generally inconsistent. Nevertheless, we show consistency when the nonGaussian log-likelihood uses a discrete scale mixture of normals in the symmetric case, or an unrestricted finite mixture more generally, and compare the efficiency of these estimators to other consistent two-step proposals, including our own. Finally, our empirical application looks at dynamic linkages between three popular volatility indices.& COPY; 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据